Share this story

Legislation approved by the Minnesota House and Senate this week would prevent ISPs from collecting personal information without written approval from customers. The quick action came in response to the US House and Senate voting to eliminate nationwide rules that would have forced ISPs to get consent from Americans before using or selling Web browsing history and app usage history for advertising purposes.

When the Minnesota Senate on Wednesday discussed a budget bill, it added an amendment that says ISPs may not "collect personal information from a customer resulting from the customer's use of the telecommunications or Internet service provider without express written approval from the customer." The amendment would also prohibit ISPs from refusing to provide services to customers who do not approve collection of personal information.

Democratic state Senator Ron Latz proposed the amendment in the Senate. While the amendment doesn't specifically mention browsing history, the text may be broad enough to cover such collection, and a statement from Latz said his intent is to prevent ISPs from selling "browsing history, health data, financial information, online purchase data, app usage and geo-location."

Further Reading

“This amendment is about standing up and saying that our online privacy rights are critically important," Latz said. "The amendment states that Minnesotans shall not have their personal information from their use of Internet or telecommunications services collected by providers without their express written approval. It won’t circumvent the federal government, but it will give Minnesotans a legal recourse to protect their privacy."

“We should be outraged”

The Senate and House versions of the budget must be reconciled into a compromise version before final passage, the Pioneer Press noted. Republicans have a one-vote majority in the Minnesota Senate, but one Republican sided with Democrats in order to get the amendment into the Senate's final bill.

“We should be outraged at the invasion that’s being allowed on our most intimate means of communication,” said Republican Sen. Warren Limmer, according to the Pioneer Press. “This is an amendment that so urgently needs to be addressed.”

Republicans have a 77-57 advantage in the Minnesota House, while Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton is a Democrat.

Further Reading

President Trump is expected to sign off on Congress' decision to kill the Federal Communications Commission privacy rules. While there wouldn't be any rules for ISPs at the national level, states could try to implement some form of the FCC rules for their own residents. ISPs might conceivably change their practices nationwide if enough states do so, or customers in some states could have fewer privacy protections than customers in other states.

"As on climate change, immigration and a host of other issues, some state legislatures may prove to be a counterweight to Washington by enacting new regulations to increase consumers’ privacy rights, a New York Timesarticle said this week. The Times article mentioned laws in California, Connecticut, Nebraska, and West Virginia and proposals for new laws in Illinois, Hawaii, and Missouri, but none of these laws and proposals was specifically targeted at ISPs.

98 Reader Comments

Just watch...the chairman of the FCC will, in a complete reversal of opinion, suddenly decide it is within the purview of the FCC to regulate this and will seek to preempt state law on the matter with the help of Congress.

Florida, PLEASE take note of this. Actually, I think it's time to write a few congress people and have them take a look at this. The judicial system is going to have to get involved in this for people to have any chance at stemming the ISPs.

"ISP: Hello Subscriber! We've noticed you've been researching moving to Minnesota... would a 15 dollar deduction on your monthly bill possibly change your mind? Also, Minnesota is cold and it is overrun with werewolves, just look it up on our homepage!"

Unfortunately, I doubt that ISPs in states without these protections will stop collecting information on their subscribers. It's trivial to exclude certain people once the infrastructure is in place and they'll be little gaming of the system because they need your billing address.

If they didn't post a restriction on costs the ISPs will just charge 10X as much unless you agree. I don't have options for ISPs so I'm beholden to whatever the Evil Empire Comcast decides to force me to sign.

"ISP: Hello Subscriber! We've noticed you've been researching moving to Minnesota... would a 15 dollar deduction on your monthly bill possibly change your mind? Also, Minnesota is cold and it is overrun with werewolves, just look it up on our homepage!"

More like "I see you've recently moved to Minnesota, unfortunately your bill has increased by $15 due to increased 'infrastructure' costs."

Just watch...the chairman of the FCC will, in a complete reversal of opinion, suddenly decide it is within the purview of the FCC to regulate this and will seek to preempt state law on the matter with the help of Congress.

Except the law they passed strictly forbids the FCC from ever making any such decision again.

Just watch...the chairman of the FCC will, in a complete reversal of opinion, suddenly decide it is within the purview of the FCC to regulate this and will seek to preempt state law on the matter with the help of Congress.

Except the law they passed strictly forbids the FCC from ever making any such decision again.

What I would love to see would be someone like Elon Musk or the like (John McAfee seems to like to stir up trouble) form an ISP that would give customers the option to 'opt-in' to their data being sold for monthly discounts on their bill.

Just watch...the chairman of the FCC will, in a complete reversal of opinion, suddenly decide it is within the purview of the FCC to regulate this and will seek to preempt state law on the matter with the help of Congress.

Except the law they passed strictly forbids the FCC from ever making any such decision again.

Notice I said with the help of Congress.

There is no way the FCC will make such an attempt, nor will Congress backpedal on this one. Their new stance is "repeal and replace". Republicans have hated the FCC meddling with their hard-earned ISP lobbying $$ for years, and Ajit is the perfect tool to continue drumming up support.

> Republicans have a 77-57 advantage in the Minnesota House, while Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton is a Democrat.

I am from Minnesota and this is the part of the article that jumps out the most. There is no way this state is that republican in a broader sense.

Yes, the national vote over the entire issue of user privacy is a matter of legalized corruption. 77-57 is another matter of legalized corruption although with some lawsuits on gerrymandering in neighboring Wisconsin, it might not be legal forever.

"ISP: Hello Subscriber! We've noticed you've been researching moving to Minnesota... would a 15 dollar deduction on your monthly bill possibly change your mind? Also, Minnesota is cold and it is overrun with werewolves, just look it up on our homepage!"

Slightly off-topic, but also "Did you know that Minnesotan's are not allowed to gamble on line, even when visiting somewhere it's legal?"

Just watch...the chairman of the FCC will, in a complete reversal of opinion, suddenly decide it is within the purview of the FCC to regulate this and will seek to preempt state law on the matter with the help of Congress.

Except the law they passed strictly forbids the FCC from ever making any such decision again.

Notice I said with the help of Congress.

There is no way the FCC will make such an attempt, nor will Congress backpedal on this one.It's all "repeal and replace". Republicans have hated the FCC meddling with their hard-earned ISP lobbying $$

Congress voted to allow these sorts of activities, so it wouldn't be backpedaling for them to preempt the state rules to the contrary.

Just watch...the chairman of the FCC will, in a complete reversal of opinion, suddenly decide it is within the purview of the FCC to regulate this and will seek to preempt state law on the matter with the help of Congress.

Except the law they passed strictly forbids the FCC from ever making any such decision again.

Notice I said with the help of Congress.

There is no way the FCC will make such an attempt, nor will Congress backpedal on this one.It's all "repeal and replace". Republicans have hated the FCC meddling with their hard-earned ISP lobbying $$

Congress voted to allow these sorts of activities, so it wouldn't be backpedaling for them to preempt the state rules to the contrary.

"When the Minnesota Senate on Wednesday discussed a budget bill, it added an amendment that says ISPs may not "collect personal information from a customer resulting from the customer's use of the telecommunications or Internet service provider without express written approval from the customer." The amendment would also prohibit ISPs from refusing to provide services to customers who do not approve collection of personal information."

Leaving the door wide for ISP's to charge an indeterminate fee, one way or another, for not selling your usage data.

Just watch...the chairman of the FCC will, in a complete reversal of opinion, suddenly decide it is within the purview of the FCC to regulate this and will seek to preempt state law on the matter with the help of Congress.

States right are really only needed for things that matter to the right... it's called pick-and-choose federalism.

Just watch...the chairman of the FCC will, in a complete reversal of opinion, suddenly decide it is within the purview of the FCC to regulate this and will seek to preempt state law on the matter with the help of Congress.

Except the law they passed strictly forbids the FCC from ever making any such decision again.

Notice I said with the help of Congress.

There is no way the FCC will make such an attempt, nor will Congress backpedal on this one.It's all "repeal and replace". Republicans have hated the FCC meddling with their hard-earned ISP lobbying $$

Congress voted to allow these sorts of activities, so it wouldn't be backpedaling for them to preempt the state rules to the contrary.

That sir, is a true possibility.

Possibility? Nay, probability, if not certainty. As another noted, states rights are only allowable when promoting conservative if not fascist practices. Should MN be joined by any substantial number of other states doing this, a law will issue preempting them and explicitly allowing ISPs (and any other communication providers) freedom to do whatever they want, for whatever profit they might gather, with your traffic and personal information. Perhaps even with any data you store in their system.

There really needs to be a prohibition against altering the price of service based on whether the customer allows data collection/selling or not. Without it, ISPs will simply raise rate "because we can" and offer a "discount" for opting in. The law needs to state that the ISP must charge the same rate for service, regardless of data collection status.

There really needs to be a prohibition against altering the price of service based on whether the customer allows data collection/selling or not. Without it, ISPs will simply raise rate "because we can" and offer a "discount" for opting in. The law needs to state that the ISP must charge the same rate for service, regardless of data collection status.

That, sir, would be a regulated public utility. Which communication and internet providers no longer are. Plus, there's precedent even under regulation: charging for unlisted numbers.

Okay now time to see if the so-called "States rights" party has kittens when a state actually acts upon its rights to create independent policy.

They have already shown their colors as regards marijuana use. States rights are only in primacy when it is a conservative cause.

Utter nonsense.

Be careful not to confuse "conservative" with "republican". One is an ideology the other is a political party.

The Federal Government should remove itself for all sorts of over-reaching policies (cough, Obamacare, cough) and it is not only the right, but the duty, of State Governments to take these up. With issues like marijuana, a conservative might feverishly disagree with a State's decision, but not with the ability of a state to make that decision.

[quote]

That statement is utter horseshit! Try telling that to any citizen of DC - marijuana laws, city budget, gun control, and the civil rights issue of denying us voting representation. Yes, DC is not a state, but there are countless other examples like defense of marriage.

My concern about this is the Supreme Court overturning it based on a claim of ISPs being part of interstate commerce, which falls under congressional purview.

Minnesotan here. Very happy with my state legislature. Glad we're leading the charge. Guys, it might get cold up here, but it's really not as bad as you think, I don't think we had more that 5 below-zero days this last winter Come on! Move on up!

Just watch...the chairman of the FCC will, in a complete reversal of opinion, suddenly decide it is within the purview of the FCC to regulate this and will seek to preempt state law on the matter with the help of Congress.

Of course, it's literally from the Republican playbook; small government institutions are great unless they're doing dirty liberal things. Like cities trying to enact their own minimum wage laws, or expand protected classes for civil rights (which is exactly what started the idiotic bathroom bill frenzy, mind you), or municipal utility projects. In those cases, we gotta put the boot down...for freedom?